So the McCain campaign has its knickers all in a twist about today’s story in the NY Times about his association with telecom lobbyist (and attractive blonde) Vicki Iseman. The NYT reports that, in 1999, McCain’s aides became “[c]onvinced that the relationship had become romantic,” and took it upon themselves to warn Iseman away from, and limit her access to, McCain — prior to that, she had been seen at fundraisers, in his office, and with him on a corporate jet, with apparently alarming frequency. McCain’s aides were so worried that they thought his association with Iseman was “risking his campaign and career.” Go read the whole article — it’s worth it.
Anyway, the McCain campaign last night put out this laugher of a statement:
“It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”
But of course that’s transparently false. Remember the Keating Five? McCain himself admits that he screwed up by doing “favors” for “special interests” — namely, a wealthy patron and supporter named Charles Keating. Here’s a refresher on that scandal, from today’s NYT story:
Mr. Keating had taken over the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association and used its federally insured deposits to gamble on risky real estate and other investments. He pressed Mr. McCain and other lawmakers to help hold back federal banking regulators.
For years, Mr. McCain complied. At Mr. Keating’s request, he wrote several letters to regulators, introduced legislation and helped secure the nomination of a Keating associate to a banking regulatory board.
By early 1987, though, the thrift was careering toward disaster. Mr. McCain agreed to join several senators, eventually known as the Keating Five, for two private meetings with regulators to urge them to ease up. “Why didn’t I fully grasp the unusual appearance of such a meeting?” Mr. McCain later lamented in his memoir.
When Lincoln went bankrupt in 1989 – one of the biggest collapses of the savings and loan crisis, costing taxpayers $3.4 billion – the Keating Five became infamous. The scandal sent Mr. Keating to prison and ended the careers of three senators, who were censured in 1991 for intervening. Mr. McCain, who had been a less aggressive advocate for Mr. Keating than the others, was reprimanded only for “poor judgment” and was re-elected the next year.
And here’s McCain himself on that episode:
“I would very much like to think that I have never been a man whose favor can be bought,” Mr. McCain wrote about his Keating experience in his 2002 memoir, “Worth the Fighting For.” “From my earliest youth, I would have considered such a reputation to be the most shameful ignominy imaginable. Yet that is exactly how millions of Americans viewed me for a time, a time that I will forever consider one of the worst experiences of my life.” …
Mr. McCain has since described the episode as a unique humiliation. “If I do not repress the memory, its recollection still provokes a vague but real feeling that I had lost something very important,” he wrote in his memoir. “I still wince thinking about it.”
So the McCain camp can dispute the details of the Iseman story all they want, although the NYT article seems pretty darn well sourced. But they surely cannot claim with a straight face that McCain has been a sterling exemplar of ethics for his entire Senate career. Has he learned from his transgressions? Sure. But it’s foolish to forget that they happened.
Does he even address Iseman?
<
p>He attacks the NY Times then goes off on the special interests tangent (which is completely debunked).
Matt Yglesias reports
I didn’t know that.
<
p>Those religious conservatives will just love that, love it! — especially as it does not seem to be coated with penance.
The Times article also exhumes the Keating Five article as David points out. From the history, one gets the impression that McCain’s reformer crusade has been an attempt to wash his public persona of the skunky taint of corruption from that intervention with regulators on behalf of a bank that should have been better regulated not less.
<
p>It also explains why a number of Republicans find Mr McCain sanctimonious.
<
p>In contrast to McCain, Hillary Clinton must be extremely careful in what she says about herself because the Scaife-funded attack machine dogged her for so many years; the media can’t elaborate enough negative narratives about her. Maverickman McCain, whom the media just loves loves loves, has not had to be so careful. So his writings are full of delicious openness where he admits tasty character flaws to delight the oppo researcher. The Times article, quoting McCain’s autobiography, indicates that McCain is attracted to the wrong kind of people. Hence, Keating. Hence, Iseman.
<
p>Perhaps I we should start a 527 now. We can define this guy into ignominy by June if well-funded.
Would this even be a story if Iseman were not an “attractive blonde?” This was the lead story on several newscasts this morning, but if Iseman were just a fat guy, then the same lobbyist’s frequent appearances “at fundraisers, in his office, and with him on a corporate jet” wouldn’t seem all that alarming and it certainly wouldn’t be breaking news.
<
p>The real story has already been lost in the tabloid coverage and that, to me, is far more troubling.
he wouldn’t get the Vitter-style wink ‘n nod he’s gotten so far for screwing around on his first wife. He’d be cast off by the GOP like a Craigian leper. So yes, it would be a story. A far uglier one.
<
p>The story happened, Wookie, because the senator’s aides observed him getting “close” to someone not his wife, and then doing favors for her clients. All the while being in the Party of Prudery. Her sex has nothing to do about it. Their alleged sexual relations and resultant favors has everything to do with it.
I’m not talking about sexual relations- male, female, none of the above, whatever. But, by harping on that, you are making my point.
<
p>I don’t know what their relationship is/was, but if a Senator were so tight with a lobbyist that the person was around with “alarming frequency” and Senator was “doing favors for his clients” that in and of itself would not necessarily be a story. The alleged screwing around has become the story, when the improper relationship with a lobbyist should be the story.
i think both marital infidelity in a gooper candidate and favors for lobbyists are the story. it needn’t be one or the other. perhaps this is what makes the story so putrid for the gop: there is something in there to offend almost any faction of the party.
The only understandable reason to get too close to a lobbyist is sex. As long as it isn’t “hypocritical” sex, of course, which it isn’t in this case. In this case, the allegations serve him well, since he doesn’t seem too old if he’s still chasing women around.
Republican.Sexual.Hypocrites
<
p>Listen to Bay Buchanan say it herself – the GOoPers set themselves up to be branded hypocrites because
She is outraged that McCain has dodged the charge and hasn’t directly stated to the electorate that he has been faithful to his wife.
I think that for the “values voters”, this could be McCain’s swiftboat moment. And for the fiscal conservatives, the reminder of his role in Keating 5 and other dodgy lobbyist favoritism can’t be comfortable. What with all the mortgage crisis and bank failures happening now and all…
That’s why values voters like Mike. They know McCain is divorced, and that he doesn’t talk enough about family values. But being disgraced with affairs and divorce is an acceptable reason not to talk about values, and McCain’s silence on values is evidence of shame, at least he is respectful enough not to seem proud or defiant.
If they want to criticize him for his involvement with the Keating Five, excellent history. But insinuating that he had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago — without any substantive evidence except for “concern” by his own staff — seems like classic sleaze slinging to me. All that they’ve really got is that his aides met once with the woman at Union Station — hardly Pulitzer Prize material, especially considering no less than four reporters worked on this story assisted by two researchers. This is gossip — or a potentially big piece that never hit paydirt but which they had invested so much time and money in they needed to run anyway — a sort of political TMZ with an agenda, not news.
<
p>I thought this paragraph was telling:
<
p>
<
p>Come on. The guy’s campaign manager is working for him for free. Many would say that is a sign of admirable devotion and idealism. Here is becomes a sinister unreported gift by a lobbyist.
<
p>The main objective of this story, in my opinion, was to get an attractive woman who is not McCain’s wife next to his name in the newspaper.
they have more than aides meeting once with her in the train station. the article says that his aides observed them frequently in the office, on the airplane, at functions, in ways that made them question his fidelity. you can still call it gossip, but you have to admit that it didn’t arise from just one 5 min conversation at the station.
<
p>his problems are
1) he is already a know cheater, so the mud sticks
2) he hasn’t denied having an affair with her.
This is sleazy politics, because they don’t actually have anything except for an insinuation.
<
p>Your second point is a classic, “I don’t beat my partner,” formulation. Why should he have to deny anything? The people making the claims should have to present some kind of credible evidence before denials are demanded.
<
p>The NYT is already under extreme financial pressure. Have you seen their stock price lately, or been following the news about hedge funds pressuring the owners? Their big shiny new building probably cost a pretty penny. If they lose their journalistic credibility they will really be in trouble. This is not their finest moment.
because he already has a history of cheating on his wife. because he admits to being reckless. because the moral majority demand purity. these are reasons why some party faithful will pay attention to the reports of anonymous aides unless they hear something convincing from McCain. try getting into their mindset and you’ll understand. we’re not talking about a court of justice, we’re talking about doubt in people’s minds as to just how dishonest this particular politician is, and whether his history of “mistakes” makes him too-risky a candidate.
has a schadenfreude value, but we ought not encourage it.
<
p>John McCain cheated on his previous wife, so we can be sure he cheated on this wife?
<
p>By that logic… Barack Obama did drugs in the past, so we can be sure he did drugs in the present?
<
p>This trivializes political discourse. Keep the focus on 100 years in Iraq, and McCain’s promise to appoint Sam Brownback’s kind of judges–you know, like Alito and Roberts who said a woman can’t sue if her employer discriminated against her for longer than 180 days. (Goodyear v. Ledbetter)
McCain is being asked to reassure his supporters. so far, he hasn’t. there is nothing in the article or what i’ve said that states that because he cheated in the past we can “be sure” he will cheat again. but there is that nagging uncertainty about his reformation (with lobbying or with women), because “once a cheater always a cheater”.
<
p>trivializes the discourse? well, that all depends on what you find trivial. lots of people choose candidates based on impressions of their character. this is a character issue. we would be wise to examine all aspects of the candidate, from history of his character to his voting record and policies, because different things are important to different people.
and convince them. There was never a chance I’d vote for him.
<
p>I just don’t care whether McCain did the wild thang or not–there’s a mental image I wish I could erase.
<
p>
but you’re not the only reader of this blog. did you think this was for an audience of one? if you don’t care about this “thang”, then stop torturing yourself and click yourself away. it’s just that easy.
<
p>as for the freepers, they don’t need my help. they’re convinging themselves just fine.
I just don’t get it. Accusations, actually mostly insinuations, from a number of people put together creating a foggy picture of something even the Times is unwilling to declare was adultery. How is it that this rises to the level it has?
<
p>Focus on the close relationship with a lobbyist and his pushing through that lobbyists’ agenda – that is story aplenty.
<
p>Painful as it is to say I think that Huckabee probably won the most credit from this story for his rational response
<
p>
<
p>Without any substantive evidence this really is a baseless accusation. I’d condemn it against any Dem and I condemn it against any Republican. If we cannot win on the merits while holding our head high then we are not who we claim to be.
The Rising Above tactic to try to beat down the Clinton Rules has not proven very successful to its practitioners. Why, for example, do we still hear that Gore said he invented the Internet? Why are so many Americans convinced that Obama is a crypto-Muslim?
<
p>Would that the mere power of nobility could change the rules or win elections!
forgives, undertands, doesn’t snoop, and respects privacy. We try to keep transgressions secret, we don’t want to know about anyone elses or want other people to know about our own. Outing people and gossiping and reveling in immorality is what the immoral left likes to do.
Actually he did at his news conference this morning. News reports are she has also repudiated this story.
i’m interested in reading their refutations. the only one i’ve seen so far from mccain, he didn’t answer the question directly but used obfuscating language about serving the nation faithfully, blah blah.
McCain on claim of coziness with lobbyist: ‘It’s not true’
he does answer “no” directly. the print media hasn’t, to my knowledge, printed that clear answer.
<
p>now it remains to be seen whether “the base” will think he is being frank (rather than a john…sorry, couldn’t help myself. 😉
…. any appearance of Old school slime attack against Obama is repudiated but against McCain this unsubstantiated story is Okay. I guess this is the new double standard for the politics of change. It was Okay for Obama to repudiate his drug use but not for McCain to see the error of his ways from the Keating five scandals. I would say McCain’s record on Ethics Reform and Campaign Finance reform speaks to this. (BTW when is Obama going to stop giving nuanced responses to accepting public funding for the general election?)
<
p>BTW further Bill Bennet (certainly a true poster child for Conservative Hypocrisy along with Drug addict Limbaugh) gave his opinion that the NYT’s may have united the conservative base behind McCain in a way McCain would never have done himself. Well done bastion of the Liberal view in the US. But hey didn’t they publish the Petraus betray us mess that blew up in Move On’s face?
<
p>The story that is dominating the coverage so far is: What the Hell was the NYT thinking??
<
p>
Just to point out one obvious distinction: Obama was in college the last time he used drugs (as far as anyone knows). McCain was already holding one of the highest offices in the United States when he betrayed the public trust. Hardly comparable.
<
p>As for what the NYT was thinking, my guess is they want Huckabee’s campaign to gather a little steam and make McCain squirm for a little longer.
…McCain’s actions in response to his mistakes. It is sad that his record from that time till now is not somehow substantial proof that he wanted to reform the status quo ( McCain/ Finegold, McCain/Kennedy) but this is going to be one of those stories you read into it what you want to.
<
p>For example I would guess the next thing we will hear is he is a Hypocrite to his moderate principles for trying to unite his party behind him but if a Dem is doing it is building party unity. Fact is in primaries you get pulled to the extremes which is what sucks about our two party system.
Another point of distinction between the drug use of Obama and the questionable conduct of Senator McCain. The first was a crime, the other, not.
<
p>Curious as to Senator Obama’s thoughts on that. Does he feel he should pay a price for his criminal actions, or, if not, does he feel a 20 year old today, arrested and convicted for possessing cocaine shouldn’t be punished.
it is at least a crime against integrity, if not the law.
Sure, the court that tries crimes against integrity, crimes against nature…is the court of public opinion.
<
p>Adultery may or may not be a crime because old statute on the books in some states, and if it is, it’s not enforced in any of the 50 states.
<
p>Possession of cocaine is enforced in 50 of 50, plus it’s a Federal crime.
<
p>My question stands, and it’s legitimate: He used cocaine; he admitted it. Does he believe he should be punished for his crime? Alternatively, does he believe that the 20 year old black kid who is arrested for cocaine possession tomorrow should be punished?
<
p>Anyone know if Senator Obama has been ask that question?
<
p>Maybe “repudiating” it’s enough, as in “yeah, yeah I killed someone a bunch of years ago, and I repudiate it, can I go now?”
If we went around busting everybody who used drugs before they were 25 years old, we’d have a lot of people 55-70 in jail right now. Just an observation.
are still valid law, unless they’ve been trashed by the state supreme court, right? the 1913 laws fit into this category. old but coiled and ready to strike. so i’m not sure i’ve gotten a clear answer to my question. is adultery against the law in the usa?
See CMD’s post below. Lawrence v. Texas would probably have had the effect of making those adultry statutes unconstitutional.
you can’t definitively claim that the answer is “no” if you qualify it with “probably”. if this is untested territory, then just say so.
I say, “probably” because I can’t so state, definitively.
<
p>I say, “no” because the subject line is small and brevity valuable.
<
p>The argument that adultry isn’t illegal, seems right to me based on a Constitutional, right to privacy argument. It makes sense to this lawyer. Tax lawyer that is.
<
p>I’ll defer to distinguished and learned constitutional counsel on this tangent (who seems more interested in commenting on adultry than cocaine possession, go figure), but reiterate with CMD that the Uniform Code of Military Justice seems to think that Lawrence v. Texas evicerated the Military’s enforcement of adultry.
<
p>Why shouldn’t a similar case, involving a state statute reach a similar conclusion? Seems possible, even probable. I’ll stick with probably.
Lawrence doesn’t have anything to do with adultery, which involves taking actions contrary to vows to which the state has given its imprimatur. No one has challenged adultery statutes in light of Lawrence, and I seriously doubt the challenge would succeed.
I guess I’ll have to disagree, and state that if adultery is not based directly on sexual activity between consenting adults, then the act might be more properly described as “rape.”
<
p>Unless the substantive due process “right to privacy” is just a legal fiction that emanated from beneath Justice Douglas’ robes.
… as David points out, is the context of the vow. Lawrence doesn’t address the vow in any way and as such, doesn’t speak to adultery, which by its definition has to do with breaking a vow… however consensual the act. Can’t use one to address the other.
Do the legal minds of the military think differently?
… what you are getting at. I was addressing Lawrence. No idea how the Military deals with it.
Link. Plus, there’s a fair amount of speculation in Law Review papers on whether or not Lawrence works to invalidate adultery.
… Thanks
<
p>For me it still seems like a stretch. There is lots of legal behavior I can engage in that becomes illegal within certain contexts. Adultery is less a crime of acts than a crime of context. The context is the key discriminator for the crime. Sex with someone else? Legal. Sex with someone not your spouse while married? Adultery. Since the circumstance seems to be the operative criterion for adultery, the question becomes does Lawrence do anything to muddy the circumstantial rules that define the crime? Lawrence was about private consenting acts. Those acts would still violate adultery because of the context of the vows, which means that ‘consenting’ has a marriage dimension to it in that context. So the best case for muddying I can come up with is ‘consensual’ adultery where the ‘adulterer’ has obtained the consent of his or her spouse to stay, establishing that all interested parties, including the spouse, consent. Frankly I don’t see that as a bad thing. In such an interpretation, crime of adultery is avoidable by eliminating the lack of consent of the spouse. Thus it could be said that adultery has to be more precisely defined in terms of spousal consent. Thats about as far as I can stretch (or see) the extent of Lawrence’s impact on adultery law.
It may appear a stretch to you, but to reiterate, Military Justice appears to think that Lawrence made unconstitutional its own adultery rule. And–speaking from experience–the military has lots and lots of decent lawyers. So, without exploring the history there, it’s apparent that there some subtance behind the argument.
<
p>So look further into Lawrence: “The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”
<
p>From that quote, it’s reasonable to me that the word “their” easily refers to two (or more I guess) people, even two people not married to one another.
<
p>Similarly, Lawrence made the observation that (similar to adultery statutes), less than half of the states had laws against sodomy and the Court noted that there was a pattern of non-enforcement of said laws. Much as is the case with adultery laws.
<
p>Also in Lawrence, the Court noted that the stigma that attaches to being branded a criminal even though the offense was a minor misdemeanor. Is this any different from adultery where even in the more belicose state of Virginia the penalty is only $250?
<
p>And finally, and since I really have no further energy for a complete Brief, if you take a look at the 1983 SJC case, it appears that it’s reasoning for finding the adultery statute constitutional in 1983, simply don’t exist after Lawrence.
<
p>YMMV obviously.
…appears to think that Lawrence made unconstitutional its own adultery rule.”
<
p>Was the link you gave me some kind of official position of the JAG? If not where are you getting this?
<
p>”The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”
<
p>I maintain that he sexual conduct isn’t the crime in adultery. Its he context of adultery that makes legal sexual conduct illegal. Pretty straightforward as I can see it. YMMV of course.
<
p>It is a given that not all “private sexual conduct” is legal. Lawrence didn’t change that.
<
p>”Similarly, Lawrence made the observation that (similar to adultery statutes), less than half of the states had laws against sodomy and the Court noted that there was a pattern of non-enforcement of said laws. Much as is the case with adultery laws.”
<
p>Interesting, but to bring up a point of order: this doesn’t amount to Lawrence establishing anything. What it brings up is that he reasoning behind Lawrence may be applicable to other statutes. Each of those statutes is a different case, with different contexts and so mileage will most likely vary. This necessarily illustrates the hurdles to get from here to there.
<
p>I’ll review the SJC case.
But I note that if true, this argument would cast the entire substantive due process “right to privacy” into the dustbin. People either have this right, or they do not. Otherwise, context: if the person is enaged in sexual acts with a member of the opposite sex, the context is different from someone so engaged with a person of the same sex. So the former is accepted, and the latter prosecuted. Or, context: People may have the right to make medical decisions about their own bodies, but when they have another person incubating inside them, the context is different, and thus they no longer do, at least if those decisions would harm the incubating person.
<
p>I withhold comment on whether the end of substantive due process jurisprudence relating to a right to privacy would be good or bad.
… for the law isn’t “is there a context”, but “is there a reasonable context”. Privacy is the standard by which you can judge reasonableness. Sex with a minor… not a privacy issue. Sex with an eggbeater… privacy. Sex with an eggbeater in public… not a privacy issue. Sodomy behind closed doors among consenting adults?… privacy.
<
p>I think your send point is right, but AFAIK right now a fetus isn’t a legal person. Their rights aren’t infringable in the context of personhood.
I suppose before we reinvent the wheel in this thread, here’s a link that’s spot on.
<
p>The money quote:
<
p>
<
p>Moneyquote notwithstanding, the article leans toward your conclusion and not my own.
<
p>That said, it’s tough for me to imagine that the Court would recognize (per Lawrence) that a statute that criminalizes private sexual conduct, and as the Court says, it’s a statute that ‘demeans their existence or controls their destiny’, is any less demeaning or controlling if the couple charged is married, and not to one another.
…
<
p>I see where you (they) are coming from. I just disagree. It seems obvious to me that an adultery prohibition will or will not be upheld on the basis of what reasonable privacy expectations there are with regard to adultery. I don’t see that as a bad thing. Lawrence just said that prohibition of sodomy doesn’t make sense in the context of demonstrable standards of privacy. It is also salient to point out that marriage isn’t a private act and therefore adultery isn’t a violation of a private act.
I don’t agree with the thrust of your comments but this is not the cause of my reply.
<
p>Let me say, as someone who has lost a loved one in a particularly violent and brutal murder, I am deeply and personally offended by the smirky hypothetical phrase you chose to use to close your argument:
<
p>”yeah, yeah I killed someone a bunch of years ago, and I repudiate it, can I go now?”
<
p>Why in the world would you thoughtlessly compare a violent crime – murder – to limited personal drug use? I truly hope you know the difference by law or by impact. They are not the same.
<
p>Believe whatever you want about McCain, Obama, adultery, or drug use, but please make your argument using a more apt comparison, “killing” is not that one.
Substitute any felony of your choice.
<
p>”Yeah, yeah I a) embezzled b) used cocaine c) committed the following felony ___, a bunch of year ago, and I repudiate it, can I go now?”
I guess in your case, sarcasm will substitute for shame.
<
p>Apology accepted.
See Lawrence v. Texas.
See above – I doubt Lawrence has undercut adultery laws.
The New York Times is not part of Obama’s campaign nor does its newsroom embrace the Politics of Change nor should it.
<
p>Bill Bennet’s comments can be interpreted as the usual bluster in response to hints of scandal.
But it is generally perceived across the country as being the mouthpiece of the Campus Liberal Establishment. Not totally inaccurately, in my view.
Having now read that story, I find that it took a team of reporters to unearth decades-old material on Lincoln S&L, and to put in the new information–based only onb anonymous sources– that he was close but not necissarily intimate with a lobbyist.
<
p>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Pretty flimsy stuff, really.
<
p>He still unusually honest, at least for a politician.
<
p>I don’t think this amounts to a swift boat moment because it is 6 or 7 months too early. It will be old news by St. patrick’s Day, never mind November.
After reading the whole article, and Josh Marshall’s item on TPM, methinks a couple of your colleagues doth protest too much.
<
p>I’m still looking for anything not factual reporting about this:
(my italics)I think I would wait to cry foul on The Grey Lady; when the rest of the story comes out, it’s going to feel a little silly way out on that “don’t get down in the gutter” limb.